......just to re-emphasize my recurring point on these threads as well as in the spirit of this particular thread; I will always continue to insist that Graphisoft absolutely need to completely overhaul their present and aging parametric-modeling engine which, as we all know, is a throwback to the days when you had to do half your input and changes by coding in commands and intentions through programming (gdl scripting) rather than via the traditionally intuitive graphical and architect-friendly visual interface/gui that most their competitors are now beginning to adopt. That's why it's so difficult to create custom objects from scratch, or modify existing library objects; That's why there exists a rather thin parts- and objects-library that hardly reflects the market offerings that most architects have to consider when spec' ing their designs. And that's why we're not likely to have any fully functional, or at least properly fixed Stair tool for a while any way.
And they are not likely to overhaul the engine anytime soon due to currently inflexible constraints that could have been avoided had they had a long-term plan with their clients needs first and foremost in mind rather than their shareholders' bottomline. The first is obviously their incredulous decision to switch from a 18-month to 2 year upgrade cycle to a yearly upgrade cycle for upgrading versions of ArchiCAD. A year is barely enough time to getting the program fully functioning with all the necessary hotfixes in place, as well as all the required updates and upgrades to complimentary third-party plugins and addons whose developers also seem to struggle with AC's new schedule. By the time most firms think it's safe to upgrade their systems to the latest version, a new versions is typically right around the corner. Shorter upgrade cycle means shorter Beta-testing phase, which inevitably means a more error and crash-prone product pushed out of the door. And don't even talk about the integrations of new features, which has now become an exercise in plugging in half-complete features from version to version and then completing the tool or the feature in the ensuing version. They should also allow us to pay half-license fees and complete the other half of the fees in the next version, no?
So it's no wonder they will never have the capacity to completely re-think and upgrade and overhaul the program's engine to adopt new technologies and enable more powerful functionality while they still struggle to maintain the current aging engine just working right from cycle to cycle.
Secondly, the lack of a long-term plan for the program as to where they want to take it in the industry, or even the lack of an articulation of such a plan if it exists, means they are not accountable for improving the software or anything beyond making sure the current version works well enough based on a (by now, rather low) standard they set for themselves going back to the version 8.0 debacle. As long as they can stay above that fiasco, then they consider any particular version a success. Such a methodology for running a development firm is fine if you're a front-runner (which ArchiCAD no longer is and is falling further away from), but when you're trying to be competitive and to give your clients an advantage, that's just a loony principle to adhere to. At some point in their history GS got stuck in some time-loop wherein they were the Industry's leading pioneer in this whole Virtual Building/BIM paradigm, and it seemed enough to just hold that mantle of being the Industry's first, and for a while, the only one as well. Well, it's no longer enough.
The point in all this is that, as elucidated in the 2 Vectorworks threads, they came to the realization that there's no going forward for them with their current methodology and modeling tools (despite the fact that VW modeling as it is, is still more robust than either ArchiCAD or Revit), so much so that they are adopting new technology to bring their clients and customers at par with AC and Revit users. So imagine the implications if you could if GS were to adopt some of the technologies shown in the video below of the Siemens parasolid modeling kernel in a sort of potential custom-parametric-object creation module to work within ArchiCAD. the video shows mechanical design parts for examples but the same technology and methodology has been used in Architectural contexts ranging from Gehry technologies Digital Projects, to Microstation and now even VW will apparently find a way to make it work for them. Some of those tools are just simply powerful and make complete sense from a design perspective. The ability to change the model and maintain updates using annotative functions such as the dimensioning and labeling tools, the ability to intelligently import foreign Geometry and natively manipulate it in your own work environment. Not to mention the ability to do all this parametrically in 3D with design intelligence built into the actual geometry as opposed to the objects. sadly, some of that is what VW users can look forward to by 2010, while we still hope for a fully functioning Stair tool.
the link:
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/campaigns/breakthrough/index.shtml
....the modeling video demos run from about a third of the way in after the intros by the VPs.
This was what I always thought that ArchiCAD would be capable of by the time the 21st Century rolled around.
And they are not likely to overhaul the engine anytime soon due to currently inflexible constraints that could have been avoided had they had a long-term plan with their clients needs first and foremost in mind rather than their shareholders' bottomline. The first is obviously their incredulous decision to switch from a 18-month to 2 year upgrade cycle to a yearly upgrade cycle for upgrading versions of ArchiCAD. A year is barely enough time to getting the program fully functioning with all the necessary hotfixes in place, as well as all the required updates and upgrades to complimentary third-party plugins and addons whose developers also seem to struggle with AC's new schedule. By the time most firms think it's safe to upgrade their systems to the latest version, a new versions is typically right around the corner. Shorter upgrade cycle means shorter Beta-testing phase, which inevitably means a more error and crash-prone product pushed out of the door. And don't even talk about the integrations of new features, which has now become an exercise in plugging in half-complete features from version to version and then completing the tool or the feature in the ensuing version. They should also allow us to pay half-license fees and complete the other half of the fees in the next version, no?
So it's no wonder they will never have the capacity to completely re-think and upgrade and overhaul the program's engine to adopt new technologies and enable more powerful functionality while they still struggle to maintain the current aging engine just working right from cycle to cycle.
Secondly, the lack of a long-term plan for the program as to where they want to take it in the industry, or even the lack of an articulation of such a plan if it exists, means they are not accountable for improving the software or anything beyond making sure the current version works well enough based on a (by now, rather low) standard they set for themselves going back to the version 8.0 debacle. As long as they can stay above that fiasco, then they consider any particular version a success. Such a methodology for running a development firm is fine if you're a front-runner (which ArchiCAD no longer is and is falling further away from), but when you're trying to be competitive and to give your clients an advantage, that's just a loony principle to adhere to. At some point in their history GS got stuck in some time-loop wherein they were the Industry's leading pioneer in this whole Virtual Building/BIM paradigm, and it seemed enough to just hold that mantle of being the Industry's first, and for a while, the only one as well. Well, it's no longer enough.
The point in all this is that, as elucidated in the 2 Vectorworks threads, they came to the realization that there's no going forward for them with their current methodology and modeling tools (despite the fact that VW modeling as it is, is still more robust than either ArchiCAD or Revit), so much so that they are adopting new technology to bring their clients and customers at par with AC and Revit users. So imagine the implications if you could if GS were to adopt some of the technologies shown in the video below of the Siemens parasolid modeling kernel in a sort of potential custom-parametric-object creation module to work within ArchiCAD. the video shows mechanical design parts for examples but the same technology and methodology has been used in Architectural contexts ranging from Gehry technologies Digital Projects, to Microstation and now even VW will apparently find a way to make it work for them. Some of those tools are just simply powerful and make complete sense from a design perspective. The ability to change the model and maintain updates using annotative functions such as the dimensioning and labeling tools, the ability to intelligently import foreign Geometry and natively manipulate it in your own work environment. Not to mention the ability to do all this parametrically in 3D with design intelligence built into the actual geometry as opposed to the objects. sadly, some of that is what VW users can look forward to by 2010, while we still hope for a fully functioning Stair tool.
the link:
....the modeling video demos run from about a third of the way in after the intros by the VPs.
This was what I always thought that ArchiCAD would be capable of by the time the 21st Century rolled around.
Vectorworks may get parametrics and a change engine -- but are they going single file too? If they are, then this is a groundbreaking change. One of the limitations of VW is that their plug-in objects are limited in what they can create: the relatively easy workaround is that you can create your own symbol from scratch, but it's not parametric.
Revit is on a yearly cycle where certain new features are added during that development cycle; other features take much longer to develop and development on those features may continue through several years/cycles. So in any given release you're getting new features that were either developed entirely in that cycle, or were finished development in that cycle.
AC12 was a quantum leap for AC in my opinion -- something that should encourage AC users. A shorter release cycle doesn't mean that major changes to the software can't be made; it just means that Autodesk and Graphisoft can create some hype more often. And that's not a bad thing -- every March feels like Christmas to Revit users as they wait for a new release. Likewise, there are many Revit users who complain about the short cycles and how disruptive they are: so there are many who do not use the new version until 6,9 or even 12 months after the release has been available. Most Reviteers like to be bleeding edge though
I was talking on the phone yesterday with a AC-Talk member who's become a good friend thru this forum, and we were commenting on the fact that there is something wrong -- even dysfunctional -- with how ArchiCAD's development and marketing is being managed. Thanks to the internet and user forums like this, a potential software buyer is going to be able to cut through the marketing baloney that any given software developer puts out. An educated buyer is going to be able to gauge the technical competency of the software fairly readily, so it behooves the developer to make software do what potential customers expect, based on their needs and competing products' capabilities. For AC to stay on track, there needs to be some fresh blood in AC's management. Put THAT on your wishlist😉
Revit is on a yearly cycle where certain new features are added during that development cycle; other features take much longer to develop and development on those features may continue through several years/cycles. So in any given release you're getting new features that were either developed entirely in that cycle, or were finished development in that cycle.
AC12 was a quantum leap for AC in my opinion -- something that should encourage AC users. A shorter release cycle doesn't mean that major changes to the software can't be made; it just means that Autodesk and Graphisoft can create some hype more often. And that's not a bad thing -- every March feels like Christmas to Revit users as they wait for a new release. Likewise, there are many Revit users who complain about the short cycles and how disruptive they are: so there are many who do not use the new version until 6,9 or even 12 months after the release has been available. Most Reviteers like to be bleeding edge though
I was talking on the phone yesterday with a AC-Talk member who's become a good friend thru this forum, and we were commenting on the fact that there is something wrong -- even dysfunctional -- with how ArchiCAD's development and marketing is being managed. Thanks to the internet and user forums like this, a potential software buyer is going to be able to cut through the marketing baloney that any given software developer puts out. An educated buyer is going to be able to gauge the technical competency of the software fairly readily, so it behooves the developer to make software do what potential customers expect, based on their needs and competing products' capabilities. For AC to stay on track, there needs to be some fresh blood in AC's management. Put THAT on your wishlist
